House Armed Services Committee Proposes Ban on Biofuels

New Hampshire, U.S.A. --
Just one month before the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) in Hawaii, the world's largest international maritime exercise, the biofuels industry has encountered a possible roadblock. The House Armed Services Committee issued its report on next year's Pentagon budget, which inclues a measure that would exclude the development and purchase of biofuels that cost more than traditional fossil fuels.

The exclusions, however, do not eliminate all alternative fuels. Congressmen also recommended the exemption of the Defense Department from previous restrictions that prevent federal agencies from buying fuels that are more polluting than conventional fossil fuels. This would allow the military to use the Fischer-Tropsch method, which generates gas to liquid fuel from coal and natural gas — and also emits more carbon than burning refined crude oil.

The House is beginning deliberations on the Pentagon Budget Bill, H.R. 4310, today. The White House has issued a veto threat for the bill as it stands in a memo that states it "would further increase American reliance on fossil fuels, thereby contributing to geopolitical instability and endangering our interests abroad."

The U.S. military has been a major supporter in the advancement of the biofuels industry, and the Navy plans to unveil its “Green Strike Force” at this year’s RIMPAC. It purchased 450,000 gallons of cooking oil- and algae-based drop-in biofuel for jets and vessels in a contract with Dynamic Fuels to prepare for the exercise. This purchase was seen as a sign of dropping costs for biofuels, and bolstered the industry to keep moving. The biofuels will be mixed in a 50/50 blend for the exercise, which costs around $15 per gallon, and the Navy hopes to achieve a full-scale deployment in 2016.

The Navy has also pledged to use 50 percent alternative fuels by 2020 — a goal that could be hindered from this proposal as it is unlikely that costs will equate to fossil fuels in the near future.

The Committee argues that with a shrinking defense budget, military focus should be on creating more vessels, supplies, and other necessities, rather than dumping money into a new, expensive industry.

“I understand that alternative fuels may help our guys in the field, but wouldn’t you agree that the thing they’d be more concerned about is having more ships, more planes, more prepositioned stocks,” said Rep. Randy Forbes during a February hearing with Navy secretary Ray Mabus. “Shouldn’t we refocus our priorities and make those things our priorities instead of advancing a biofuels market?”

Mabus countered that if we don’t have a domestic supply of fuel, it would leave us vulnerable and we wouldn’t be able to power our vessels and other equipment.

“We simply buy too much fossil fuels from places that are either actually or potentially volatile, from places that may or may not have our best interests at heart,” Mabus told the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power in March. “We would never let these places build our ships, our aircraft, our ground vehicles, but we do give them a say on whether those ships steam, aircraft fly, or ground vehicles operate because we buy so much energy from them.”

Mabus also noted that each time the price of oil goes up by one dollar per barrel, it costs the Navy $31 million — all the more reason to create a stable fuel supply here in the U.S. And though oil prices aren’t expected to drop any time soon, biofuel prices are dropping with each new advancement.

Said Tom Todaro, a leading biofuel entrepreneur whose companies have supplied the military with tens of thousands of gallons of fuel made from mustard seeds, to Wired, “We’d be years behind if it wasn’t for the military.”

33 Comments

Biofuels don't have to be that expensive. I filled up my VW TDI at a biodiesel producer for $4.00/ga yesterday and passed by traditional petro diesel stations charging in the $4.30/ga range.

I use two local suppliers and both use only recycled fryer oil from restaurants. Between these two small plants they produce 1 million gallons of ASTM certified biodiesel per year.

One of the producers is currently changing his process to allow the use of brown grease as well as yellow grease which will reduce his feed stock costs. The new process will increase yield by 14%, eliminate almost all of the waste water and change a glycerin waste stream into a marketable co-product. The process also runs at a lower temperature which will reduce energy costs as well.

The industry is young but advancing and putting out boat anchors in the name of deficit reduction is wrong headed.

We won't power our entire economy with restaurant grease but progress with other processes including engineered bio bugs that eat sewage, other waste products and non food agricultural products have the potential to make substantial impacts on our energy supply.

Except for the fact that to grow crops for biofuel, while alive, undergo a little process of turning carbon based gases into energy for their survival. Last time I checked, the mining for natural gas has more in terms of risk.

May 29, 2012

Not sure how you fly airplanes helicopters with NG unless it is in liquid form!
The Sundrop facility in Louisana might enlighten you and others on the multi-role of NG and Bio-mass.

It is just plain stupid to convert the cleanest burning fuel we have to a fuel that already requires us to use catalytic converters and many other pollution controls on our vehicles and it is STILL a major source of air pollution.

@24125 - I really wish you knew what you were talking about. So, let biofuels find a market, but the gas companies need significant investments from the populace--in the form of health and safety. Additionally, in order to power traditional engines, the investment to move from petroleum to biofuels is very cheap, where the change from petroleum to LNG is much more expensive. Also, I think some of the reading on Chesapeake may be enlightening.

May 29, 2012

Let Bio-fuels and all the associated issues find a market that does not require a premium that adds to our deficit. We are not really dependent on foreign oil-we have sufficient fuel supply in the gound(ready to be tapped)with NG leading the way!
NG conversion to clean liquid fuel is a great strategic back-up.No new technology required !

Actually bio based Ethanol Methanol Butaenol and Deisel may be produced which meets and exceeds petrol based fuels emmissions levels as liquid fuels. It is simly a matter of Industry Applying the technology correctly to this end. Some of the processes are superior to others in this area. Those that ptoduce dirty emmissions bio fuel should not be allowed to market it as they would be doing no one any favors as we can see. I believe this is all the contentioness is about anyway.

I believe in supporting bio-fuel development and refining the process until it is competitively priced. In the mean time, why can't we convert to using natural gas, a clean alternative energy source to the other more expensive and dirty fuels.
We have at this time an over abundance of natural gas in this country yet we seem unwilling to use this resource to lower our balance of payments, reduce pollution and save money for our citizens. What are we waiting for?

ANONYMOUS
May 29, 2012

I wish biofuels would not always get politicized.

I do not have to be a Republican to point out that biodiesel from vegetable oil causes more emissions than it saves (because of land-use chnage), and increases food prices. On the other hand, some of the advanced biofuels (like from Algae), whose development is being subsidized from the defense budget, would avoid these problems.
So please be specific and not just shoot from the hip on political lines.

How many straw men are you going to put in that post? The armed forces know what they are doing in this respect. They are trying to remove some volatility, in their costs, and their lives. It makes sense.

ANONYMOUS
May 29, 2012

Spending money on infrastructure and education??? What happened to the money from the 'stimulus bill' that was supposed to be spent on education and infrastructure? Where did that money go?
I give you three guesses and the first two don't count. ANSWER: the money was funneled back into campaign contributions for the WORST president we'd had in the White House. Barack Obama.

A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for socialized medicine, socialized energy, socialized education (we already have that), socialized housing, (well on our way with that too)
basically socialism or another name: communism.

If the government would get out of our way and allow the free market system to work, which has for over 200 years this nation would become energy independent in a heartbeat.

Vote for people like Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Schummer, Weiner, Obama and the economy will continue to tank, the housing market will continue to be in the toilet, our energy prices will continue to rise and our POTUS will continue to bow and kiss the backsides of the oil rich leaders.

It's the dream of every major super power to replace our inherent right to lead all of humanity into Mutually Assured Destruction with their "leadership" which would allow them by 2015 to have more people in prison than any dictatorship in the world and more weapons of mass destruction than any other two countries on the planet...that of course would all be powered by solar, wind and geothermal energy.

The military have been key to the economic development of many industries. The IC industry (where I worked for most of my adult life) was initially supported by the US military and NASA, because although the simple ICs were technically very exciting, their cost was way too high for normal industrial use, except in a few corners. The design and production techniques, supported by the DOD & NASA purchases, fairly rapidly developed to a much lower cost, thus becoming economic for industrial and consumer use. Without this early support, your PC, MAC, IPod, IPad, cell phone, digital TV, etc. would be still years away from development.

It is entirely probable that the same scenario can work in the biofuel area. It is certainly preferable for the US and the free world that the development of economic biofuel technologies take place in the US rather than in China, N.Korea, or other hostile regions such as Iran. A few $Millions spent here now is surely a good investment, and a negligible effect on the deficit, where it is lost in the 5th or 6th decimal place! And most economists (rarely such a unified group) think stimulus is way more important than deficit reduction while the economy is slowly recovering from recession.

So the Navy is going to have 50% alternative fuels by 2020, eh? I can't wait to see those fissionable bio-fuel replacements for the U and Pu in their nuclear reactors. Perhaps they can find these fuels in the crops grown near Fukushima.

The US military understands that we increase our security problems via our dependence on foreign fuel sources. We need to develop alternatives, not only liquid fuels for planes/vehicles but also non-fueled power generation for troops in the field.

This action from the Republican House is just part of their service to the fossil fuel industry and an anti-renewable energy program.

You don't like Republicans getting dumped on, especially on a renewable energy site? Then put some pressure on your Republican representatives and get them to stop their ridiculous anti-science, anti-progress behavior.

I agree with Mabus. The US is invariably enriching those same people who do not want them to exist by buying their fossil fuels. I think it is wiser to invest the millions of dollars today to become energy independent. It is practically possible for the US to be able to achieve that. Investing in the biodiesel technology may seem costly today but when the area matures costs will definitely come down. It is a matter of time.

If lower cost was a serious consideration, then RE would already be deployed. It would reduce the logistics tail (with patronage implications) and it would reduce base side target signature (infrared spectrum).

The House Armed Services Committee has made a reasonable rule that alternative fuels should be cost competitive with existing fuels. That is a basic market requirement that goes beyond the pentagon. If our products can't meet that requirement they won't be successful anywhere.

Anonymous, I would much rather money be spent on developing new fuels than on military equipment. Those figures that are being thrown around are tiny percentages compared to the overall defense budget. They of course seem large to individuals because we compare them with our own budgets, but they are insignificant when compared to the several hundred billion that the military spends annually. Besides, as Mabus points out, biofuels development is a weapon in itself. Having an alternative fuel is a hedge against being cut off from foreign supplied fossil fuels.

ANONYMOUS
May 18, 2012

I thought this forum was about energy? Your political reteric demonizing Republicans and spouting Democratic talking points are not furthering the advancement of energy. Unless we can find a way to harness the hot air blowing out of you? which is only contributing to global warming.

Your thoughts are that Republicans are regressive if they dont want to allow U.S. tax dollars dedicated to defending you, be spent on more expensive forms of fuel? Is is Progressive to force our children and grandchildren to be even more beholden to Chinese financing? Did you miss the line on mustard seed fuel would not exist without the U.S. Military creating a market for it. At this point the U.S. Military needs to save where it can.
SEE: $31 million cost increase per $1.00 rise per barrel oil.

Add Your Comments

As associate editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com, I coordinate and edit feature stories, contributed articles, news stories, opinion pieces and blogs. I also research and write content for RenewableEnergyWorld.com and REW magazine. I manage...